First Knight Reviews
(1995) First Knight
HISTORICAL FICTION ACTION ADVENTURE
I tried watching this, but I couldn't get into it, and was able to watch it on my second attempt after watching the 1950 film "Knights Of The Round Table" starring Robert Taylor. I mean, I don't mind seeing an alternate version of "King Arthur", but this movie is too pretentious and silly to be taken seriously, since it assumes viewers are already aware about the story, or in this case the characters. The story has been concocted to focus on the one-note romance between Lancelot(Richard Gere) and Guinevere(Julia Ormond). And that's not the only problem I had, I had a very hard time on the physical aspects too, such as accepting acting veteran Sean Connery as King Arthur who looks like he's old enough to be playing Guinevere's father, who's not much older than the person playing Guinevere's father as well. I mean, if viewers didn't know who Sean Connery was, and were to turn the sound completely off, it sometimes looked like Guinevere is making out with her sugar daddy, or another Hugh Hefner type of person so-to-speak who enjoys making out with younger women. In the movie, he said Guinevere was the first woman he ever fell in love with, but later on in the movie, viewers later find out that he's already been married 4 times prior to falling in love with Guinevere. In the 1950 version of "Knights Of The Round Table", Lancelot's main intention was to serve King Arthur, but in "First Knight", they end up meeting by chance-as in Lancelot completing the dangerous obstacle course without padding. Am I watching something from the 'family movie channel' or is it supposed to be a movie people pay money to watch.
Some of the more corniest scenes has to be Lancelot himself, played by Richard Gere, which the movie portrays him as a person who lives in the forest, sort of like a bushman. He has no arrows but only a sword. He sleeps in the forest, like he needs no blanket probably except the clothes on his back, which his lifestyle is similar to Tarzan except that he has a horse. What kind of foolishness is this, 'King Arthur for dummies? I must have grimaced at least 3 or 4 times, since Lancelot's conceitedness is so cocky and fake, it's like it's intentioned for the simple minded. And the main villain is so stupid, it would've been all over had King Arthur pursued him in the first place, but it's like stall. And then stall again, because Lancelot knew where the main baddie's hideout was, but they just wait and wait and then wait, until he attacks first making the set up for the battle scenes one of the worst in movie history. It's like seeing the worst PG 13 rendition of "The Lord Of The Rings". It said that it's made in 1995, but it looks older, since it's a nothing but a higher budget of something Roger Cormon could've thought of, or Ed Wood.
1 star out of 4 stars
Thank goodness they left out the abracadabra!
I'd see this movie any time.
he is not. SEAN CONNERY IS SO VERY SEXY.